Peter Loch I have seen some terrible movies, but this definitely ranks in my top 10. Multiple award nominee, and winning actor, Jeroen Krabbé (presumably one of Hollands best ???) really outdid himself with bad acting and the most hideous "dutch-english" accent ever. Krabbé is said to be a great actor...well..I have to see his first good role yet! When the film starts we are warned that this is a REAL and GENUINE snuff movie (yeah...right...with mainstream actors...duh...) but nevertheless I thought giving it the benefit of my doubt. I wish I never did. The start of this monstrosity is very loosely based on the Tate murder by the "Manson-family" with writing on the walls etc., but if they tried to give a kind of a Mason like twist to this "movie" well, they didn't succeed...Does the acting don't make you feel sick yet, then the "killing" will absolutely do so. One of the characters is killed in a van by 3 young girls ("Teeth" (with vampire shaped teeth...all of 'em...) "X" (coz she has an X carved between her eyes) and "Young" (coz she's young), original er ??)...don't ask me where the blood comes from...it's just THERE !!So even if you have 93 minutes of your precious time to spare, don't, no really DON'T waste 'em on this piece of rubbish !!!

Coventry The storyline, settings and production values of this film are all strangely similar to the notoriously sick horror classic "Last House on Dead End Street". Could it possibly be that pure grim grindhouse exploitation is back from the dead?!? Well, not really, but the least you can say about "Snuff-Movie" is that it's a reasonably good attempt to revive the misogynous shock-cinema from the 70's. Even more surprising is that the film is a one-man project of Bernard Rose, a director whose older films "Candyman" and "Paperhouse" are still regarded as stylish and prominent horror classics. The underrated Dutch actor Jeroen Krabbé stars as the embittered filmmaker Boris Arkadim who lost his beautiful wife and a share of close friends because they were killed by a bunch of violent maniacs who videotaped their crimes. Fourteen years later, Boris decides to make a new movie that tells the story of that night and thus four actors are lured to his isolated mansion full of cameras. It takes quite a while before anyone notices, but Boris plans to slaughter his guests on camera for real. Bernard Rose's script tries to be a little TOO intelligent (especially near the end) and the tension-level lowers with every plot twist. The gore is incontestably NASTY and there's plenty of authentic sleaze (there's a blond Playboy model in the cast, people!), so fans of underground-trash horror will love those moments! Despite the promising title, however, "Snuff-Movie" isn't half as disturbing, offensive or controversial as it wants to be and the film definitely needed a better climax. The acting performances are more than adequate and the cinematography with a Sony hand-camera is fairly well-handled. Worth a look if you're into semi-extreme cinema.

C_Karber I just saw it at the Edinburgh Film Festival and I think this film is absolutely brilliant!First, Thank god that a smart horror film has arrived in a genre long stagnated with mediocrity, slasher nonsense or "around the corner, haunted house" horror. If you are the someone who needs high budget Hollywood filler, then this might not be for you. This is what good film making should be...thought provoking and entertaining. It even has a bit of the old ultra violence thrown in for good measure!Leave it to Bernard Rose (a real auteur - wrote and directed last several films) to create a thoughtful and complex horror film reminiscent of Ken Russell or Dario Angento. His commentary on the horror genre, violence, sex and voyeurism (in general) is outstanding and could only come from a master director of horror (Candyman - Paperhouse)In Snuff-Movie, Rose has assembled movies on top of movies which all make up this movie. Sounds strange? Watch the film and you'll get it! Each movie is unique in its reference to a particular element of horror and constantly questions what horror truly is. Rose refers to these different elements and expands to even incorporate our fascination with voyeurism with TV's (Big Brother - Reality TV) and the internet (web cam sex etc). The film's narrative progresses forward through the use of these different "movies" and keeps us guessing as to what is next and what is real. It's constant changes are referential to the TV channel switching age we live which is fueled by violence and the viewers ever increasing need for it. Ironically, Rose is smart enough to understand horror and address it from alternate view points. He makes some wonderful references (to so many other horror films) throughout that I was thoroughly amused!Conversely, There is so much outstanding social commentary you have to appreciate it. For instance the murderous tortures all looking like Private England dressed in Camouflage but with fangs. Then there is a comment on an internet porn search that reveals one characters girlfriend. Talk about playing on your fears in the modern age!Like in most reality shows...I found the acting (across the board) stifled and contrived. I found the sets stifled and contrived. I thought the characters looked like they were wearing wigs....then it dawned on me that I was being taking for a "ride" by Rose and when the final scene takes place, it all made perfect sense! Brilliant. What a commentary! Remember, this is a movie. Movies aren't real. At what level are you going to suspend your disbelief?Must see!!

Richard Brunton The title of this movie gives the impression of something dark, tight, psychological and on the very edge of acceptable cinema. I'd say the last statement is most definitely true, it is on the edge of acceptable cinema, because it contains mediocre acting, a confused and torn script, and no conviction.It's a shame because there is a message in there, and the lead character does manage to say it in no uncertain terms during the movie, and that's because he has to. There's really no other way to get to the moral of this tale through the confusion.The second of the opening scenes remind me of the British Television advertisement for a certain directory assistance number, cheesy 70's outfits, hairstyles and moustaches. The section is supposed to portray events in the past, and from the beginning you can see the poor acting. There is much overplaying to the camera, and scenes of actors looking as though they're trying to find something to do to fill the time until the Director yells cut.The first of the scenes is equally as bad and amusing, but then we are expected to see that as it is supposed to be an old cheesy horror movie. Some grounding an basis for the entire movie, but also to show us the level of gore that we're going to be seeing. There's nothing slick or costly about the effects, they are cheap and cheerful, and although some might be deemed shocking, there's nothing really off-putting in the movie.From these opening segments we return to the present day to find the ex-laird of Glenbogle (another British Television event) is indulging in some rather frisky behaviour, obviously in a desperate attempt to try and shed his previous TV nice guy image. It fails though, and throughout this movie he sticks out like a sore thumb.The script is so confused that scenes just seem to happen out of nowhere. For instance suddenly we're all outside and there's a huge audience of onlookers watching events. This from the previous premise where we were all in a house being filmed by webcams. This is probably the best example of the confusion we were shown and felt.It attempts, from an early stage, to address some issues on the Internet, freedom of speech, the fact that anyone can broadcast anything online. Yet it stumbles over them, readdresses them through the script, and doesn't really say much about them by the end of the movie. In fact at the end it seems to take a totally different tract altogether, and doesn't seem to have been about anything at all. Very confusing.Add to all this that it's filmed poorly and seems to have been thrown together editing wise, and it's an altogether awful movie. IMDb lists this as still in Post Production, and perhaps we were treated to an early cut at the Edinburgh Film Festival 2005, who knows. It was just bad.There were two moments though that actually got my feelings moving. One was when the ex-laird Alistair Mackenzie sits down at a computer while his girlfriend is away for the evening, starts a can of lager, and pulls up Google with a search for some porn. By the time he's on his third can you can see the searches getting worse. This actually raised a good laugh from the audience, and was something you could instantly connect to.The second was a stabbing scene late on in the movie, a man is stabbed in the stomach, all the time you see his muscles moving and there doesn't look to be a special effect in sight. That was unnerving and is probably the only scene where you would consider the possibility that it was living up to its title.There it ends though. The female lead Lisa Enos is weak and unconvincing, and what the hell has happened to Jeroen Krabbé, his role is awful.I won't go on. There's nothing to redeem this movie bar a laugh and an awkward moment. I'd avoid like the title should have suggested.